Scientific and Pragmatic Challenges for Bridging Education and Neuroscience
(2008)

Neuroscience has experienced rapid growth in recent years, spurred in part by the U.S. government’s designation of the 1990s as “The Decade of the Brain” (Jones & Mendell, 1999). The rapid development of functional neuroimaging techniques has given researchers unprecedented access to the behaving brains of healthy children and adults. The result has been a wave of new insights into thinking, emotion, motivation, learning, and development. As these insights suffuse the social sciences, they sometimes inspire reconsideration of existing explanations. This is most true in psychology, as marked by the births of cognitive neuroscience (Gazzaniga, Ivry, & Mangun, 2002), developmental neuroscience (Johnson, Munakata, & Gilmore, 2001), and social neuroscience (Cacioppo, Visser, & Pickett, 2005). It is increasingly true in economics, where the rapid rise of neuroeconomics (Camerer, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2005) has caught the attention of the popular press (Cassidy, 2006). Other social sciences, including communication (Anderson et al., 2006), political science (McDermott, 2004), and sociology (Wexler, 2006), are just beginning to confront the question of whether their research can be informed by neuroscience. Education is somewhere between the two poles of early adopters and tentative newcomers. A decade ago, in this journal, Bruer (1997) forcefully considered the relevance of neuroscience to education. His conclusion—that neuroscience is “a bridge too far”—was noteworthy because Bruer was then director of the McDonnell Foundation, which was actively funding research in both disciplines. Although it was in his best interests to find connections between the disciplines, he found instead poorly drawn extrapolations that inflated neuroscience findings into educational neuromyths. Since Bruer’s cautionary evaluation, a number of commentators have considered the prospects for educational neuroscience. Many sound a more optimistic note (Ansari & Coch, 2006; Byrnes & Fox, 1998; Geake & Cooper, 2003; Goswami, 2006; Petitto & Dunbar, in press), and a textbook has even appeared (Blakemore & Frith, 2005). In this article, we negotiate the middle ground between the pessimism of Bruer and the optimism of those who followed. Table 1 summarizes eight concerns about connecting education and neuroscience. Some are drawn from Bruer (1997) and the ensuing commentaries. Others come from conversations with colleagues in both disciplines, and still others from our own experiences. These concerns do not seem to represent a blanket dismissal but rather a genuine curiosity (tempered by a healthy skepticism) about the implications of neuroscience for education. We begin by articulating the concerns along with some facts about neuroscience that make the concerns more concrete. We voice them in the strong tone in which we have heard them espoused. We then revisit the concerns, reinterpreting them as potential opportunities (also in Table 1). This approach permits us to review a selection of neuroscience studies relevant to content learning. We focus on recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), or neuroimaging, studies for reasons of space and because these are the findings that have captured the most attention, both in the academy and in the popular press. Ideally, our review illustrates some elements of neuroscience so that education researchers can think more specifically about the prospects of educational neuroscience. We conclude with two reflections on moving from armchair arguments of a philosophical nature to scientific action on the ground. First, we argue that education and neuroscience can be bridged if (and only if) researchers collaborate across disciplinary lines on tractable problems of common interest. It is the success